Urgent BH terfing- write to your MP TODAY 5th May on the Data Bill

During the debate on the amendment, the Government provided reassurances that the Bill will not alter the evidence which can be relied upon to prove sex or gender but simply enables people to do digitally what they can already do physically. It expects digital verification services to be used primarily to prove things such as the right to work, age, address or professional or educational qualifications, which are not areas where sex or gender is relevant.

AIBU to think that the gist of this is, OK, perhaps the sex/gender data won't be fully accurate (and it would be much too much trouble to make it so), but hey-ho, that's not really important?

Sadly David Lammy has decided to support nonsense

Astonishing.

Sadly David Lammy has decided to support nonsense:

"The Data (Use and Access) Bill will establish a statutory footing for digital verification services, enabling the use of trusted digital identities, where people can digitally present their information. New Clause 21, tabled by the Opposition, would have required public bodies to record sex data as biological sex, where such data is collected.

I did not support the amendment and it has not been added to the Bill. The Government also disagreed with it. Ministers expressed concerns that it would have inappropriately extended the reach of the recent Supreme Court judgment on the definition of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act, as the Secretary of State would have the power to define sex as biological in all cases.

During the debate on the amendment, the Government provided reassurances that the Bill will not alter the evidence which can be relied upon to prove sex or gender but simply enables people to do digitally what they can already do physically. It expects digital verification services to be used primarily to prove things such as the right to work, age, address or professional or educational qualifications, which are not areas where sex or gender is relevant.

The Government has also made it clear that it does not intend to introduce similar legislation in the future.

I believe that trans people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. The recent ruling from the Supreme Court, while being clear about the importance of biological sex, was at pains to stress that trans people do retain clear protections in law, and should be able to live their life free of harassment and discrimination.

Thank you once again for contacting me about this sensitive issue.

Yours sincerely,

David

Rt Hon. David Lammy MP
Member of Parliament for Tottenham"

No, only on this thread, but I suspected a lot of it was c&p from an official script

No. I am not sure which government departments have said what about the sullivan review, and I want to get a handle on it before I rely to my mp. It needs coordination.

Or the same mp replying to different constituents.

Julesjules did you post your reply on a different thread too? If not then I think some of it is a labour text. I recognise these phrases from another mumsnet post:

"was voted down on in the House of Commons"
"allows people to do something digitally that they cannot currently do physically."

And I checked my labour mp's letter to see if it was the same, but hers is different.

I am also reassured that ministerial work looking at the accuracy and reliability of sex data in public authority datasets is already underway.

Is anyone else reassured? I am not.

Finally got a reply from my MP (Labour, female) - disappointing word salad saying nothing at all really.

Thank you for contacting me. The Data (Use and Access) Bill will establish a statutory footing for digital verification services, enabling the use of trusted digital identities, where people can digitally present their information. New Clause 21 would have required public bodies to record sex data as biological sex, where such data is collected.

The proposed amendment was voted down on in the House of Commons on 7 May. A motion disagreeing with this was passed in the House of Lords, but then rejected in a subsequent House of Commons vote.

The Government disagreed with the amendment for a number of reasons. While it has been clear it accepts the recent Supreme Court judgment that the protected characteristic of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex, it acknowledges the importance of working through the judgment carefully and sensitively.

It was stated that the way in which public authorities process sex and gender data should be considered holistically, taking into account the effects of the Supreme Court ruling and the specific and particular requirements of public authorities. I am also reassured that ministerial work looking at the accuracy and reliability of sex data in public authority datasets is already underway.

The principle of data accuracy, requiring that only data accurate for the purpose for which it is held can be used, is already included in law. There is nothing within the Bill that alters the evidence which can be relied upon to prove sex or gender, or allows people to do something digitally that they cannot currently do physically.

Kind regards

I wrote to my MP just before this debate (commented on here earlier) and blow me…I received a response today!

My gast is truly flabbered! 😂 More due to the positive support from him…and he enclosed a photocopy of his response reported in the press to the SC judgement too! 🙌🏼💪👌🏻

I’ve uploaded the letter but it will take a while to be approved by MN.

Whilst it’s so disappointing that Labour opposed the amendment, it has given me renewed faith that at least some MPs are willing to stand up and voice the opinions of MANY of their constituents.

Mine still hasn’t replied - she didn’t the last time I emailed her either. Despite telling me on the doorstep that she believed in women’s rights!

My Labour MP just replied to say thanks for the message and she’s passed it on.
She is not raising her head above the parapet either way, so I’m going to keep going and see if I can work out which side of the fence she’s on.

Mine didn't reply
She is very very full on twaw- I have never voted for her and never will

I wonder if we have the same MP!

My (Labour) MP finally replied today to tell me how concerned she is about trans rights and dignity and protection for trans people. She wasn’t in parliament when the vote took place, but her support lies unequivocally with the trans community. Nothing about women’s rights or the importance of biological sex, so that’s me told!

Adding for the record/trail: my Labour MP has finally got around to answering me, and is proud to tell me that he voted against the admendment, totally ignored all the issues raised and reasons why, and is thrilled that the bill passed.

Which is about the level of irresponsible lunacy that I fully expect from them really.

Absolutely. It's so cynical, pressing into service a tiny minority of people with whom they have nothing in common.

I get annoyed when the TRAs try to press people with DSDs into their service. This is a medical condition, FFS and it's not the norm. And Trans activists haven't got DSDs and they damn well know it.

My mp has finally replied.
A fudge as I expected. At least he did reply, I suppose.

Are we just more pessimistic about human nature?

More realistic than pessimistic in my view. There are good and bad in all walks of life. The good, decent lawabiding people far outweigh the bad but we still know that safeguarding against harms is essential and a priority to protect the vulnerable. The far left often appear to want to relax safeguarding and deride the 'Nanny State' but the same time being super hypocritical by wanting to control people's thought process in quite bullying guilt tripping tactics.

Are we just more pessimistic about human nature?

No just more honest. Every GC person believes in their heart of hearts that they are right, and science (amongst other things) backs them. On the other side, I don't think the proportion of people who truly believe the words coming out of their mouths is more than 25% at the most.

And yes, of course I did pull those figures out of my arse. But still.

I think the ‘sec is t binary because of DSDs is an easy point to demolish, and her raising of it suggests eh has swallowed some old Stonewall material without questioning it. Very much worth following up on just that for now.

My Newby labour mp has replied. Basically she completely disagrees with me and voted against the amendment, but she has written at length with her own thoughts (not a party cut and paste) and it's thoughtful. She has a be kind approach and has trans friends and thinks sex isnt binary because of DSDs. So yeah. I will reply again but I'll leave it a bit.

I might come back here for some thoughts on it when I decide to write back.

In general what do people think? Keep trying to explain it and get the points across? Or a waste of time?

She's also in favour of assisted dying which I (on balance and especially because of the specific bill) am against and I have noticed many gc's are against that, and many tra's (well lib fems) are for it, and I wonder what that's about. I think it's the be kind naivity, and the emphasis on individual choice at the expense of everything else, at play again. Are we just more pessimistic about himan nature?

Anyway enough philosophising.

That is a different and more personalised one than I received.

I am chuckling at your reply. My email reply from my Tory (south east, male) MP is identical apart from the top and the tail. He was very knowledgeable a couple of years ago on this issue.